I am a figment of my own imagination!

[The Rhymer]

Possibly yes, but since a distinction was being made, I would imagine the description 'poor man ' might apply to a labourer on a low wage, whilst a 'pauper' was someone on parish relief.

That's exactly as I imagine he was making the distinction, Pauline. He also mentions "a poor woman" from time to time, not for parity, but because they were probably living hand to mouth.

 

[The Rhymer]

Spelling is irrelevant in the 18th century - most names were recorded as they were heard i.e. phonetically, but not necessarily as we know it.

Strangely enough, where I've been living since I got married, the spelling of surnames is not considered set in stone even now. The ending of my name could be "ault"; "aut"; "aud"; "au"; "auld"; "eaux"; "eau"; "ot", or simply "o" - and others which I've probably missed out, but which all sound the same. So it's still phonetic really, and, with so many verb endings sounding the same as each other as well, it's hardly surprising that children have dictation all the way through primary school and have great difficulty with it.

However, to come back to our muttons, the only seeming replacement for Keeton, at least in FMP's eyes, is Catton. I don't know what a Lincolnshire accent is like, but I can't imagine it making Catton - to Derbyshire me who pronounces an 'a' short and sharp, so Cat-ton - into much more than possibly Cay-ton, slightly drawled. But it's still a far cry from Key-ton, or a southern Cart-ton, as in how many 'r's are there in Barth? Bath, to me!

 

[The Rhymer]

Also, parish registers do have errors or omissions, which can make life problematic for the modern day researcher.

I forgot to agree with you on this; my paternal grandmother is recorded no-where as having been baptised, yet all her siblings were dunked. This was in 1895 in a church in Derbyshire which I visited to enquire, for that and for a map of the graveyard (there wasn't one). I was told that frequently the vicar would write the christenings of the day on a scrap of paper, which he might then lose or even throw away, one hopes by mistake.

 

[peter]

However, to come back to our muttons, the only seeming replacement for Keeton, at least in FMP's eyes, is Catton. I don't know what a Lincolnshire accent is like, but I can't imagine it making Catton - to Derbyshire me who pronounces an 'a' short and sharp, so Cat-ton - into much more than possibly Cay-ton, slightly drawled. But it's still a far cry from Key-ton, or a southern Cart-ton, as in how many 'r's are there in Barth? Bath, to me!

It's not necessarily what a Lincolnshire accent is like now, but what it was like then, and that's something we can really only know by looking at how names were spelled at the time.

One alternative spelling that you haven't mentioned is Caton (or Cayton). But have you looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames - this will give some of the most common alternative spellings.

 

[Stuart]

I have noticed that the spelling of a name often changes when the family moves to another parish, or even when the minister changes. So I think that, to some extent, the literate - or at least those who wrote others' names (ministers, registrars) - felt that the written language belonged to them. So they would hear a name and write it their way, and not ask its owner about its spelling.

 

[peter]

I have noticed that the spelling of a name often changes when the family moves to another parish, or even when the minister changes. So I think that, to some extent, the literate - or at least those who wrote others' names (ministers, registrars) - felt that the written language belonged to them. So they would hear a name and write it their way, and not ask its owner about its spelling.

There was no 'correct' spelling so it would be pointless to ask. Even people who were literate didn't spell their name consistently - a prime example being the poet and playwright we usually refer to as Shakespeare. (See this Wikipedia page for a very interesting discussion: note particularly the sentence about Walter Raleigh).

Vicars were unlikely to be from the area, which is why spellings vary from parish to parish.

 

[The Rhymer]

One alternative spelling that you haven't mentioned is Caton (or Cayton). But have you looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames - this will give some of the most common alternative spellings.

I was simply citing the the alternatives for Keeton offered to me for an eighteenth century baptism in Lincolnshire by FMP, the only one being Catton.

I don't have an Oxford Dictionary of Surnames and, surprisingly, my local library doesn't either!

 

[Stuart]

There was no 'correct' spelling so it would be pointless to ask. Even people who were literate didn't spell their name consistently - a prime example being the poet and playwright we usually refer to as Shakespeare. (See this Wikipedia page for a very interesting discussion: note particularly the sentence about Walter Raleigh).

Vicars were unlikely to be from the area, which is why spellings vary from parish to parish.

Being correct isn't the point - we don't have correct spellings for surnames now, do we? We expect many of them to vary in spelling (and pronunciation) between families, but to be stable: usually inherited with preference for the male line. This is now getting more variable, but is still the norm. It does mean that you have to ask someone to be sure how to spell their name, at least in some cases.

Over the period relevant here, say from 1700 to 1900, surname spellings go from very variable to roughly as stable as now. I was pointing out a pattern I had interpreted as the effect of literacy in the holder combined with the place and the recorder. I must admit I've not done any real research on it - maybe someone has, though I'm not sure who or where. It would require more than just measuring variability; and involve tracking the name changes of families and individuals, and assessing their literacy status, so it sounds like hard work to me!

 

[peter]

Being correct isn't the point - we don't have correct spellings for surnames now, do we?

Within a particular family there is a 'correct' spelling. That wasn't the case in the 1700s, or for much of the 1800s.

It does mean that you have to ask someone to be sure how to spell their name, at least in some cases.

Nowadays we do, but in the 1700s it wasn't necessary.

Over the period relevant here, say from 1700 to 1900, surname spellings go from very variable to roughly as stable as now. I was pointing out a pattern I had interpreted as the effect of literacy in the holder combined with the place and the recorder.

It's not primarily about literacy, it's about pronunciation. It wasn't just names that had multiple spellings in the 18th century, there was variation in the spelling of ordinary English words (which is one reason why American English varies in the spelling of so many words).

 

[The Rhymer]

Two of my 4 x great-grandparents, William Garland and Mary Keeton, were married in Metheringham, Lincolnshire, on 25 September 1806.

However, quite by accident, I have just this minute - literally - discovered that William Garland, sometimes Garlant, did not marry Mary Keeton after all, but an Ann! Quite possibly, he married Ann Barnes on 6 May 1819 in Gainsborough, this being the only William Garland/Ann marriage which I can find in Lincolnshire.

This obviously throws my tree on that line into total confusion and will need hard pruning and a lot of work from tomorrow onwards. By the by, it has taught me where Gainsborough is; I thought it was south of Lincoln; my apologies to anyone who comes from Lincolnshire, or Gainsborough, more particularly!

My apologies also for this nonsensical thread which was, from the start, written in good faith.

 

[The Rhymer]

Quite possibly, he married Ann Barnes on 6 May 1819 in Gainsborough, this being the only William Garland/Ann marriage which I can find in Lincolnshire.

On reflection, the marriage in Gainsborough doesn't fit the bill as my 3 x great-grandmother, Elizabeth Garland, was born a whole twelve years before that date, in 1807

Oh what a tangled web ...

 

[peter]

The advice in Before you ask for help is well worth following.

 

[Pauline]

I’m confused now - what made you think you were looking for a Mary Keeton, if William Garland’s wife’s name was Ann? Or, have you not yet confirmed what his wife’s name was? It is unusual for a baptism as late as 1807 not to show the mother’s forename, so how sure are you that you have the right father for your Elizabeth?

It’s perhaps also worth saying (and not for the first time), that one of the easiest ways to take a wrong turn in your tree is to build on records that were ‘the only one I could find’.

 

[peter]

It’s perhaps also worth saying (and not for the first time), that one of the easiest ways to take a wrong turn in your tree is to build on records that were ‘the only one I could find’.

I'm forever grateful that so far DNA has confirmed the assumptions I made 20 years ago, but it might not have worked out that way since very few of my ancestors made wills.

 

[The Rhymer]

I’m confused now - what made you think you were looking for a Mary Keeton, if William Garland’s wife’s name was Ann? Or, have you not yet confirmed what his wife’s name was? It is unusual for a baptism as late as 1807 not to show the mother’s forename, so how sure are you that you have the right father for your Elizabeth?

It’s perhaps also worth saying (and not for the first time), that one of the easiest ways to take a wrong turn in your tree is to build on records that were ‘the only one I could find’.

You are not the only one who's confused, Pauline, as I am, too.

Back in the early days of my research, I went up my tree, grandmother to her parents, bought the certificates, etc; there weren't computers in those days. During my holidays in England, I managed to fit in some visits to Archives, mainly Matlock, the closest and accessible by train, but also Lichfield (only to find out that the village was actually in Derbyshire, not Staffordshire!) and Lincoln when my sister could take me.

I had found Elizabeth Garland, 3 x great-grandmother, daughter of William. I knew she was born in Leadenham and baptised on 7 August 1807.

But somehow, I missed getting the record of her baptism, although how I knew the date without the record, I can't explain. It was only last night when I changed her birth in Leadenham with "baptised on 7 Aug" into a baptismal record and looked it up on Ancestry that I saw that her mother's name was Ann.

As for "the only record I could find", I have never knowingly done that; I would rather leave someone without a record than do that! But now I can't find a marriage in Lincolnshire which fits William Garland with an Ann at the right time in the right area.

 

[The Rhymer]

As for "the only record I could find", I have never knowingly done that; I would rather leave someone without a record than do that!

On the other hand, nobody has ever been able to guide me on what to do when I am faced with two possible ancestors of an ancestor, right name, right birth place, right date range.

I've always received a condescending reply along the lines of "I would never do that" or a supercilious "I never guess, I just hope that one day more information will appear on-line to help me out." This last would never have worked in the case of one of my 3 x great-grandfathers: cousins, both with the same name, born in the same small village, one born in 1767 and the other in 1768, and that is all that separates them

 

[Pauline]

I had found Elizabeth Garland, 3 x great-grandmother, daughter of William. I knew she was born in Leadenham and baptised on 7 August 1807.

So was she the Elizabeth Garland who married William Hales by licence in 1836?

 

[The Rhymer]

So was she the Elizabeth Garland who married William Hales by licence in 1836?

On 7 June 1836 in Sleaford, yes.

And, I believe I have found the origin of my mistake about her mother and William Garland's (first?) wife. Elizabeth had a child called Harriet Hales in 1847 who appears on the 1851 Census with her grandfather William Garland and his wife Mary. They are together in 1841, too.

Now who would think, I bet he had a previous wife?

 

[Pauline]

William Garland and his wife Mary

And I see her birthplace was given as Metheringham, hence the assumption about the Metheringham marriage.

 

[The Rhymer]

And I see her birthplace was given as Metheringham, hence the assumption about the Metheringham marriage.

Exactement !!

But he can't have married Mary Keeton - whoever she may have been - as the Garland-Keeton marriage took place in 1806, and William and Ann had Elizabeth in 1807 and Thomas in 1809.